On 26/02/2013 15:35 , Michael Cooper wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> For (1) there's Michael's objection that he likes to post-edit in an
>> XML editor. I'd love to hear about what kind of post-editing we're
>> talking about because the point is sort of that there shouldn't be any ;)
> There can be any number of reasons to need to post-edit the result of
> automatic generation. A couple that I've had to deal with recently on a
> repeated basis:
>
> 1. Respec outputs some weird attributes like 0="" which cause the
> document not to validate and that weren't present in the source
> document, so I have to remove those.
That's not something I've seen before and it's quite surprising
(validity bugs tend to be immediately reported). Can you send me a spec
that shows that error? If it's there it's a bug.
> 2. Respec puts a paragraph with public comment instructions in the
> Status section that is not compatible with our process. I always
> have to remove that; the correct instructions are in the custom
> paragraphs I add to the status.
Can you send me examples with what you want? That seems like a feature
others would use.
> 3. There are times I prefer to tweak aspects of the output like the
> heading number format, or sometimes the TOC should go to a deeper
> level for some sections than others (in particular, appendices
> usually don't need the depth in the TOC that mainline sections do).
> I don't expect it will be possible to predict and provide
> configuration options for every scenario like this. We should just
> always expect there there might be a need to edit the output.
Not everything can be supported, but there's already an option for ToC
depth — I can look at making that controlled on a per-section basis.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon